> As the dominant informational networks of the twenty-first century, they need to be accountable for the content they broadcast, whatever its source.
The article seems to be arguing that social media companies need to be judge, jury and censor over every message that is "broadcast", i.e. sent to more than a few close friends.
It admits that defining a "public interest" standard is basically impossible, but assumes that this ambiguity won't be exploited by whichever side is in control of whichever body gets to punish the social media companies for under- or over-censoring.
If someone tweets "Click here to read my 400 page manifesto about what is wrong with America", would Twitter need to assign lawyers the task of scouring that document for "problematic" passages like "defund the police" or "give more power to ICE"?
Perhaps if there were a workable system in place for silencing extreme and misinformed voices on the TV and radio, we could try applying it at scale to the internet too, but right now that's like trying to run before you can crawl.
I am not a lawyer, but... a public interest clause might not be the right tool, since public interest can be interpreted as restricted to information that would affect a person's voting preferences and nothing broader.
In the UK TV broadcasters get their licences and general charter terms from the government, based on standards previously contested in law and, I believe, broadly enshrined in statute and/or regulations. One of those terms is a crucial clause to the effect that broadcasters are not allowed to broadcast anything that would make ordinary people throw up over their TV dinner or grannies die of apoplexy, etc.
Various entities, people or single issue political parties for instance, have attempted to get broadcasters to show films containing grisly stuff, and when they meet refusal have attempted to sue broadcasters on free speech grounds. However, the right to free speech does not allow a legal entity or person to compel some other party to shout out noxious views on their behalf. So broadcasters in the UK can exercise their rights against such compulsion and filter out extremal horrors if they wish. The tests they use are designed to maintain the same two or three standard deviations of a normal distribution curve that maximises their customer base and matches the same standards civil law requires to maintain order on the civil scale anyway.
In that context, what are social media companies if they are not media intermediaries between legal entities? Thus they can not be compelled to relay anyone's content to anywhere else if they don't want to. Their T&Cs typically say so anyway.
Folks worried about censorship of their partisan or minority views on such platforms don't seem to get what rights those intermediary companies have. They play nice relaying messages because they like mass market incomes.
So really the issue might be purely about how many messages could MetaFB/Twitter afford to kill off and still be popular enough to survive?
My 2 cents on how to fix social media, maybe it is stupid but to ban any political discussion. People LOVE talking about politics especially in their personal community (echo chamber). I swear this is the most fun political people have had on the internet in 20 years. It’s too bad it just becomes an echo chamber. We had a community group for our town on Facebook, all it was was fake accounts and people talking shit about Democrats and the occasional left wing person talking shit back. Recently they banned political discussion and anything not directly related to our town. Thank the fucking lord. People will still slip in some political bullshit but it’s miles better.
Achieving any kind of success at that is very much an outlier and can't possibly scale to all the forums currently on the internet at the moment. You may get a handful of places that reach the level that HN currently maintains but the overall effect will be the same as now.
I think every social media will grow until it reaches politics, stock / investment or pornography. And you would think having a special channel for those would fix it, but no, it always creeps back in. It is sort of strange to continue see the same pattern over and over again.
Personally I think we have a human nature problem, and not a technology problem looking for market fit.
In my social group, I ask that politics be contained to a specific channel.
Anyone is free to join the channel, no limitations or anything, just an opt-in. Rule is posted obviously and we remind people frequently.
I've lost 4 people because they were upset that this rule is enforced against everyone, out of a group of maybe 20. They wanted their politics to be everywhere and not constrained to one channel.
I never thought this tiny little policy was going to cause such a mess. It has dramatically improved the rest of discussions - you can actually just talk about stuff without people jumping in with their political takes - but it's been an upsetting policy in ways I did not anticipate.
I think that kind of gotcha response is usually wrong. Yes, people need to be protected from politics, and that protection requires a certain nonzero minimum amount of politics. The same is true for guns, smallpox, etc.
Besides what others have brought up, I'll bring up the fact that what constitutes "politics" is almost a political question in and of itself.
And I live in an area affected by Hurricane Ida. I've started following my local government on social media because it is one of the best places to keep up to date on what's going on concerning cleanup and what not. And I would say a government run page concerning that government is about as political as you can get.
As is your community page. A lot of things related to your town is political. I mean, politics is the word we use to define how groups make decisions. So any time you're talking about making decisions in a group, you're talking politics.
But of course, that's not what you mean when you say "politics". It's not what anyone who complains about politics mean when they say politics. They either mean "things I don't agree with", "things I find uncomfortable to think about", or "evangelizing a viewpoint".
For instance, someone complained about Squid Game being "too political" because it had an underlying message of "rich people fuck with poor people for sport". But it isn't a political statement at all, it's a sociological one. But thinking about how a less exaggerated version of that is basically our day to day makes that guy uncomfortable. He wanted to tune in and drop out. But "this makes me uncomfortable" is a him problem. He's trying to make it an everyone problem.
Can't we just go back to the era where the "feed" or the "wall" was just the posts of our friends / the people we follow sorted by posting date and not this horrible algorithm made to show you infinite content ?
Unless someone regulates it, no! Of course FB has no interest in that…
One has to realize that FB is only optimizing for profit (and Zuck not going to jail). The only times they curbed was when bad PR was threatening their profits (and Mark’s freedom).
Twitter stays closer to this idea than Facebook. I basically see only posts from people I follow. I can even turn off retweets. Not perfect but it's not "endless".
There is a chronological feed in FB but i haven't used it in years and they make it harder and harder to use. I've also heard of it not working for days on end.
New laws mean forcing others to conform to our expectations of their behavior. This is only acceptable when there is a broad social consensus about the necessity of the law. There is no such consensus regarding how social media should operate.
As far as I know, there hasn't even been an attempt at having a serious, ~fact based discussion on the matter that involves the public. Where/how would such a discussion even take place?
The way the world operates in 2021 is a mess, unfortunately this is normal so few people seem to notice.
I've yet to see compelling evidence that social media itself is a problem in and of itself (outside of teens but IIRC FB/Insta disallow kids until 13 to use their service per TOS).
I see a lot of stuff like, "Terrorists use the platform to organize and plan attacks!", which is true...but that seems like you should be solving that by solving the reasons people want to be terrorizing, not by attacking the mediums they use. If you want to attack mediums, then you'd be just as justified wiping away USPS as you would FB/Insta. It just seems like FB is being used as a scapegoat for lawmakers to avoid actually solving problems instead of pretending to solve them.
stochastic terrorism: the use of mass media to incite attacks by random nut jobs—acts that are “statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.”
I don't want social media to censor me, people I want to communicate with or people I don't ever want to communicate with.
I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things.
Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with to also have this ability. You will be censored if you want other people censored.
Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem?
You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences", which just isn't the reality we're living in.
I was thinking about this the other day: in public physical spaces, we often have police who step in when someone says something that breaks the law. In private physical spaces (e.g., a restaurant, store, bar, or house), we either have owners, managers, or private security who step in when someone starts breaking store policy or law. However, in public (or pseudo-public) digital spaces and private digital spaces, some of us seem to rebel strongly against any type of norm enforcement.
I mean, I can see how sometimes the internet seems to promise even more freedom of speech than in physical spaces and also that sometimes there are not very clear written laws or policies for those digital spaces, paired with unclear or unfair enforcement of those laws and policies.
Makes me wonder what the future of digital governance will look like. Do we have the digital equivalent of cops roaming semi-public spaces like Twitter and Facebook? If so, by whose consent are they governing? Do these orgs hire the equivalent of private security guards or bouncers? Have they already done so through moderators and such?
Anyway, just got me thinking about some of the challenges in the governance of digital spaces.
Public spaces is the only place where the law regarding freedom of speech directly applies.
What you can say under such circumstances is pretty diverse.
A lot of content Facebook removes would be protected speech in a public space.
In a private physical space its up to the owner.
And there is a lot of racism, misogony, bullying, sexist, misandry, threats to public figures, drugs sold, hookers,
evil gossip, conspiracy theories, fake news, bad medical advice, locker room talk, inside deals, threats that go on
in pubs, gyms, bars, clubs, by people of all races, genders, and ages (once you are allowed in).
If you owned a bar and you swore to avoid all of the above,
you would need to kick out nearly everyone on a good night with lots of spirits and beer sold.
"Ok Bob, I know we are in rural Arizona, but what you just said, well some academic in California could find that offensive, you have to leave now. "
The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics. Humans have been cancelling people and things for eternity. People with extreme views that did not align with the majority were always pushed away. This even happened in medicine and science.
I think the problem is the "democratization" of cancelation. Someone says something mildly controversial (some talk radio host said something terse about a neighbor) and people start lodging complaints against the employer and the hosts advertisers.
As if this hasn't been happening to gay people who got outed until extremely recently. It wasn't exclusively democratic, of course: the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy was only repealed a decade ago. Cancel culture isn't remotely new; only now it's punishing bigotry, not an instrument of bigotry. And, no shit, bigots are pissed about that.
It’s not new. The ability for people with little context whatsoever to cancel something just because is new. The democratization is the problem. There is usually little due process, if any. It’s not different from East Germany where is you wanted your neighbors bigger apartment you convict a story about them listening to west German radio programs.
It’s stupid.
In Korea they use this to cow people into behaving “properly” whatever the fuck that means. There is no reason to maintain the belief it will only be used to smoke out the “bigots”.
I'm not under that impression. But I am under the impression that if we had had something like the democratized cancellation we have today that it would have been much, much worse.
People having done a bad thing in the past does not excuse doing a bad thing today.
Are you suggesting that people who have experienced democratized cancellation for multiple generations would be much, much worse off compared to populations that did not experience that treatment?
edit: never did I say that a previous wrong justifies a wrong today. I'm challenging your assertion that this is "new." At the same time, I do think that some cases of so-called "cancel culture" are just fine, specifically when it's no different from any other business owner booting a customer for being abusive towards staff or other customers. Some examples of so-called "cancel culture" are in fact bad, and I agree that folks who said dumb shit 20 years ago should get some leeway if they've changed in the meantime.
Yes, and gay people were pissed about it, too. Your point? It was an unjust way to treat homosexuals, it's an unjust way to treat supposed "bigots". Especially when it turns into vulgar Gesinnungsschnüffelei combined with double standards, and reading inner motivations and beliefs into snippets, because "it could be".
Only gay people have suffered millenia of outright persecution, and face a death penalty in several countries to this day. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison here.
Something wrong doesn't become one iota better, or acceptable, because bigger evils exist. By that logic, persecuting homosexuals is perfectly fine, because bigger evils than that exist, too.
And no gay person suffered millenia of persecution, not even non-persecuted individuals live that long. You might as well say carbon-based lifeforms suffered millenia of persecution at their own hands and call it a day.
You are right, it's been around since we evolved into civilized human beings actually. We even have places where people are being "cancelled" out of society. We call it "prison".
The only new thing is that it's labelled "cancel culture" which makes it somehow "bad" for some people.
> The whole "cancel culture" concept has literally be around for years, it was just marketed now and used for politics.
Yes, but the power balance shifted so that the dissatisfaction of "small" people can now be perceived and felt by the wealthy and powerful. "Small" people can organise around a cause and make the powerful uncomfortable, so the powerful attack.
So how does this work? Some one is crappy for thinking violence, racism, misinformation, and harassment should never be tolerated? What's extreme about that? Please do enlighten me...
There is nothing extreme about getting booted from facebook because one can't behave like a reasonable adult. As noted above if anyone did any of this in a setting like a restaurant they would be asked to leave, coupled with assistance from law enforcement and even possible arrest for trespassing and disturbing the peace.
So who's wrong here? The businesses that don't want to be subjected to certain types of speech from customers because it impacts their business or the people that feel they have the right to say whatever they want free from consequence? Why can a McDonald's ask a customer to leave their establishment because they used the N word in front of customers, but Facebook can't? And let's be clear, in both cases no censorship occured, there was just consequences after the fact. Looking forward to your reply.
Only point I would make is to say that censorship has occurred.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are times and places to censor and be censored. Not all things should be said at all times.
I think the problem is that we see censorship as something bad, so anyone quelling speech inappropriate for the setting can't be censoring because they're doing something good, not bad. But censorship isn't bad in and of itself. It's the reason for the censorship that makes it good or bad.
Censoring people because they are criticising you? That's bad. Censoring people because they are talking about hockey on a basketball forum? That's good.
So I would say, don't fall into the trap of getting into an argument about defining censorship. Keep the argument focused along the lines of kicking assholes out of McDonalds. Have them explain how its different from that.
In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:
under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
So far the court has rejected the application of Pruneyard to the online space, but it might change with more sympathetic plantiffs
>Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't... spread misinformation
That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.
LOL, okay... best you can do is personal attacks? When did Facebook and twitter become the authorities? This is a prime example of why we can't have nice things.
What kind of argument is that? It's not like those people invented electrical power. They spread lies which cost lives. Every day. People DIE because of misinformation.
Information is subjective. Do you care what the pin to unlock my door is? If someone had a post asking for a unlock code and I posted mine that would be information to me but could be construed as misinformation by them. If someone makes a post about religion wouldn’t an atheist consider that misinformation?
FYI: Your weak attempt to water down scientific facts never worked on intelligent people. After the last years of Donald Trump and Covid, it doesn't work on even more people. The only remaining few this derailment attempt works for are the target group for misinformation and they don't have to be derailed further.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking
subject rather than to the object of thought;
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual;
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods,
attitudes, opinions, etc.;
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an
object as it is known in the mind as distinct from
a thing in itself.
relating to properties or specific conditions of
the mind as distinguished from general or
universal experience.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which
attributes inhere; essential.
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Old memes aside, I (as a reasonably intelligent person) don't understand what you mean by that.
Please explain what you mean by "subjective" in this context.
Are you arguing that information like "the heat of vaporization of water is 100C at sea level," or "the island of Manhattan has a land area of ~23 square miles" is only valid or correct if I as an individual decide that's the case, otherwise it's false?
How about information like "On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address," or "I voted in the 2021 elections."
> An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights?
This is not what I meant and you know it.
> Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.
This is utter bullshit and derailment. People who spread misinformation about covid are wrong. There are scientific facts which prove them wrong. The fact that they repeat something against those facts doesn't make them heroes because there was Copernicus who was also "against something". Copernicus had the facts side behind him. Those guys you try to advertise here are the church which was against him because they had THE FEELING that he was wrong and no scientific facts which would support them.
What do you mean by presented? If I have a friend who has 4000 friends and I am their 4000th most important friend, I would sufficiently believe that a generic post of mine would not appear at the top of their feed and they might not see it.
I get the idea of not having all the "so and so friend liked so and so's post" which feel low quality in a feed, but part of a custom feed is prioritizing updates from people you actually want to see updates from
If you were making the choice as to which friends you wanted to hear from or updates you wanted to receive from you're friends, then I take you point. When someone else, or their algorithm, makes these decisions that is something else and it may actually veer into censorship.
Hm. This argument falls flat to me. A feed is considered editorialized by you, but nearly any combo of content is editorialized to some degree. A magazine makes editorial decisions on where in the magazine articles are placed... this does not mean its censorship, it just means you haven't read the whole thing.
Also, the tools exists on all of these social media products to actually go and check on your friends' pages where you can see their updates. Nothing stops you from doing that and consuming the content you wish.
Well, however someone might consider feeds, we don’t have the ability to truly take control of them. At least in the case of Facebook, they mostly decide what we see and they very deliberately make the case that they are not a media company like the magazines. They are claiming they are not editorializing because the machines are making the decisions. (Albeit with instructions from their engineers.)
Those are different. In those cases content is sent to the intended recipients. Whether they see it or not is up to the receivers. In the case of some social media platforms, the platforms decide who should be sent the content, regardless of the sender’s intent.
> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people.
You didn't did it yet. All of those are moving targets, and moving extremely fast especially in the US. I could say a dozen of totally non controversial statements in my country of residence (Japan), half of which being controversial or labeled some kind of -ist in my own country (France) and all of them warranting me cancellation in the US. At this rate what you are writing now will be categorized racist, threatening or harassing in a few years or so. Even your nickname could already be considered some kind of harassment as it single out kids born out of wedlock and is thus enforcing "the patriarchy". (Think it's far-fetched? Have a look at GitHub renaming the master branch)
I disagree and if you look at my profile I provide a explanatory url for the name. As a bastard child myself I'm not concerned and when used as noun the meaning changes. I do think it's funny that people still do not understand git well enough to realize that the default branch is whatever you want it to be. Even worse, this change/name is a click away in GitHub too. What exactly am I saying here that will be controversial in the future? I'm genuinely curious.
Never said it was. I’m saying that big tech takes punitive actions against users that aren’t related to any of the things you don’t do.
For example on Facebook men are allowed to show nipples on pictures while women are not. For Canada at least, that’s discrimination based on sex / gender. Many big tech moderation policies actively encourage discrimination.
It's great to know your username is currently acceptable to YouTube.
Basically what happens on FB is comments get wildly misconstrued by the mod team / AI, thankfully it appears the mod team or it AI has a limited vocabulary so as long as you use 5 syllable words to describe your thoughts its pretty easy to avoid.
I tend to agree with you that censorship is probably an inexact or overreaching term for what's going on. Of course social media is balancing a number of factors, pleasing their regulators, pleasing their advertisers, pleasing their employees. It feels like the creation of a Digital Singapore in the vein of William Gibson's 1993 article Disneyland with the Death Penalty. (Of course the penalties are much less severe) https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
-------------
"IT'S LIKE AN entire country run by Jeffrey Katzenberg," the producer had said, "under the motto 'Be happy or I'll kill you.'" We were sitting in an office a block from Rodeo Drive, on large black furniture leased with Japanese venture capital.
Now that I'm actually here, the Disneyland metaphor is proving impossible to shake. For that matter, Rodeo Drive comes frequently to mind, though the local equivalent feels more like 30 or 40 Beverly Centers put end to end.
;-)
Was it Laurie Anderson who said that VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it? Singapore's airport, the Changi Airtropolis, seemed to possess no more resolution than some early VPL world. There was no dirt whatsoever; no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, had been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. Only the clouds were feathered with chaos—weird columnar structures towering above the Strait of China.
> Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, espouse unpopular political beliefs, mention atrocities committed by the government, attempt to peacefully organize against the government in power, or harass people. I feel free to have these discussions, and I do all the time. What's the problem?
You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.
> Funny, I'm not censored on any platform. Then again I don't make violent threats, spread misinformation, use racist language, or harass people.
There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.
I remember reading articles that claimed that the China leak theory was racist against Asians and was dangerous because it would cause violence against asians.
It does cause violence against Asians. It adds fuel to the increasing hostility and violence that Asian communities have been experiencing ever since the outbreak began. This is the case regardless of whether or not any such theory is true, so that claim isn't incredibly stupid at all.
I don't know what you consider credible, so feel free to do your own Googling. Since it's a widely reported on phenomenon, you'll find plenty of sources to choose from, and you can judge for yourself.
Also, don't keep pasting the phrase "information is subjective" into your comments, it's giving the game away.
So in your opinion then, if it were to be true, should the facts be covered up in order to prevent more hypothetical violence? I’m confused about this line of thinking.
I'm not stating an opinion on that one way or the other, only on the claim that the lab leak theory doesn't lead to violence against Asians, when increased violence against any group associated with an outbreak is common. Asians face it a lot, but gay people faced it during the AIDS crisis and Black people during Ebola.
It's not an opinion of mine, it's a well documented phenomenon[0].
If we want to go “there” then can I deem all nudity be censored? Your fixation on viewing things as either racist or not racist, as information or misinformation is opinionated. I think it is wrong that people can tweet pornography on the platform without any censorship. I doubt the Gay Comunity would be okay with that being censored, those are the posts I am subjected too. The point is any form of censorship will hamper someone’s freedom of speech. Why can’t everyone just block people that post what they don’t like? The way I do on twitter? Otherwise if we are going down the block what I don’t like road so will I!
It doesn't matter whether you're offended by the word "bastardchild."
What matters is that I'm offended. Heck, "bastardchild" doesn't even have to offend me because it is clearly offensive to bastards and possibly children.
Your "justification" for such offensive behavior is no different than the offensive explanations by folks who wanted to have lawn jockeys.
Do you think you should face consequences for your username?
People of color are more likely to be called that slur, and you are their “operator”? I talked to my BIPOC friends and they think that’s incredibly racist. They say you are dehumanizing them and are clearly a white supremacist who celebrates operating POC. They are experiencing trauma right now given the outright violence of your name.
The solution is simple. Exchange the client/server model for a peer-to-peer model. By peer-to-peer and I mean literally IP to IP and not something like instant messenger that bounces messages through a central server. Only then can you assure a fix to interference.
This requires:
* Routes - both parties to be on IPv6 or either party to have something like port address translation on a IPv6 interface.
* Identity - This will require a combination of CA and STUN. The certificate from the CA and corresponding key pair associated with that certificate ensures a user is who they say they are and their keys are respectable. The corresponding key exchange ensures the data is confined to the two parties. The STUN server correlates the unique user ID, such as that which is certified by the certificate, to an IP address.
Anything less is just another game for some media company to use you as a product.
>The solution is simple. Exchange the client/server model for a peer-to-peer model. By peer-to-peer and I mean literally IP to IP and not something like instant messenger that bounces messages through a central server. Only then can you assure a fix to interference.
This is my go to response as to "what to do about social media."
And I opine|rant|blather on about it whenever I see folks complaining about or claiming that some rules|regulation|policy will "fix" social media.
And such tracts are becoming more and more common (cf. this article[0][1], entitled OK, but What Should We Actually Do About Facebook? I Asked the Experts. from today). But, as in the article linked, no one ever suggests decentralized communications.
I'm not sure why, but there certainly are barriers to making decentralized "social media" work. Those same barriers are what make centralization of much of our digital universe necessary and hugely profitable.
Those barriers are primarily (there are other issues, but are mostly part of the result rather than the cause) related to the ways in which end-users are provided access to the Internet.
I'm specifically referring to asymmetric internet links. Most internet links are $X Mb/sec download and ($X / 25 or so) Mb/sec upload.
What's more, there are often policy restrictions on "consumer" internet links that block them from "running servers," whether that be port blocking or throttling.
This keeps decentralized communication from being viable. Other than these artificial barriers, there's nothing stopping folks from hosting their own cat/family/meme photos/videos and/or other content.
There are plenty of decentralized platforms that can do so with minimal set up and configuration.
However, if you can't serve more than a couple of concurrent connections at a reasonable speed, that breaks the whole decentralized/P2P paradigm. Because my upload bandwidth is the limiting factor in being able to host content.
If, on the other hand, you have a link with symmetric bandwidth without policy restrictions, serving your own content is a no-brainer.
As such, my "solution" for addressing the "censorship" of the centralized "social media" platforms is to make them irrelevant by eliminating the entire reason for their existence -- asymmetric bandwidth favoring download vs. upload on internet links.
YouTube was founded when most people had slow internet and they seemed to have done ok. I have fiber at my house and do about 920mb/s both up and down. It’s only a matter of time before that becomes almost universally common enough to rule out bandwidth from any consideration.
As a result I am writing a peer-to-peer application assuming universal fiber, 4K displays, and IPv6 are already common.
>I have fiber at my house and do about 920mb/s both up and down. It’s only a matter of time before that becomes almost universally common enough to rule out bandwidth from any consideration.
I hope you're right. Where I live (the US), most ISPs have cable TV systems, interests in streaming platforms, or both.
That provides incentives to maintain the status quo WRT asymmetric links and centralization.
ISPs like Verizon, which had previously pushed hard on fiber deployment, are refocusing on wireless, as that's a much bigger profit center for them.
I hope you're right about the inevitability of (multi-)GB/sec symmetric connections, but the current incentive structure argues against it, at least in the US.
Which is why I believe that last-mile FTTP[0] should largely be local, public/quasi-public[1] utilities that support themselves by selling interconnects to multiple ISPs.
Those ISPs can then compete on speed, price, services, etc.
At the same time YouTube was founded we also had widespread peer to peer audio and video distribution, despite asymmetric Internet connections. Probably the largest peer to peer networks? It worked fine. It was on the verge of being real time for video, when it was replaced by centralised, commercial technology.
Calling the problems faced by social media simple is the sort of hubris that only comes about because of the Dunning–Kruger effect. You're underestimating the complexity of the problem because you're under-informed. Some aspects of your proposal have been tried before. They aren't new. History indicates that your proposal fails to achieve long term product-market fit. It also fails this entirely because of being decentralized and associating IP addresses with people and having high friction - not because of corporate dystopia.
Let's raise the level of discourse by reviewing our history. There are and have been in the past decentralized social applications. One of the most notable of them in terms of adoption was Skype. It was acquired by Microsoft. In the past it was normal to use Skype in gaming communities. It was a competitor to Ventrillo and TeamSpeak. Skype moved away from decentralization.
It's really common at this point for people who are simultaneously paranoid and outraged to start exclaiming with indignation that clearly corporations are evil. This failure to engage with reality is common online. Putting aside that social companies only discovered a few years ago that connecting people had disastrous consequence and have been devoting billions to try to address these so-called simple problems ever since it became clear these problems existed lets try to see if we can find a non-paranoid good-faith reason for Microsoft to have moved away from decentralization.
What do you know, but Discord displaced Skype for a reason within gaming communities!
Why did gaming communities move away from Skype? I've been in gaming communities. I've heard people express some of their problems with Skype. One of the issues that Skype had was that... it was decentralized and that could lead to the leaking of your IP address. Therefore if a streamer or even another person accidentally showed their Skype they could get DDoSed. At high levels in various competitive games this was a severe problem, because as you might guess... in social media you tend to be connected with people who are socially connected to you! So you leaked your IP address very often to just the sort of people with the incentive to capitalize on that by DDoSing you so they could beat you in a game.
Now Skype isn't decentralized, but it didn't matter. They didn't do a good enough job to serve some segment of the community. So Skype was doing just what you suggested. Being decentralized. And they had a higher friction process than a competitor, which is the case for your solution. And as a direct result of these things... (and others, mind, but we have to simplify reality at least a little to understand it)...
Discord found product-market fit in the gaming niche! And it grew increasingly popular. And now everyone in the gaming communities is on Discord, not Skype. Moreover, Skype has lost share even outside of gaming to Discord as Discord executes the standard niche to general playbook that so many social companies have found success executing.
Congratulations: your simple solution has already failed. You thought it was simple, but you were just ignorant of the actual challenges. But now we get to the real problem. The problem you completely missed. All of what I just said? It isn't the real problem. Those are details. They are suggestive of the real problem, but you need to step back and think about this from a level higher to see the true problem. It isn't technical. It is social. It's in the name. Not technical media, social media.
The true problem is so complex that it is almost certainly impossible to solve in a way which will please everyone. I'd go as far as to say it's probably fundamentally unsolvable.
Here is the real problem outlined using what we covered above:
1. Notice that decentralization is important to you.
2. Notice that it is outright against the desires of others.
3. Notice that social applications get more powerful as the number of participants...
1) Social media has a profit motive to increase engagement
2) Social media has an expensive moderation problem
The solution is also simple, but certainly not easy. There are technology problems to solve.
When you remove access to the user content from the service provider they have nothing to moderate and cannot increase engagement through manipulation of the message (algorithms).
Most people (current developers) refuse to see this simplicity because alternatives are a world directly in conflict with their current livelihoods. This is a behavior called Cognitive Conservatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revision)
I will explain the alternative like this: content on demand directly at the source. Its like what Netflix did to cable and network television. Users take the content when they want it a la carte without waiting for a content provider to prescribe a fixed schedule. Instead of waiting for a media service to make features or content available, or even for their users to make user content available via upload, in a peer-to-peer reality the content is available the moment a user allows remote access. Facebook is like old cable television. You have to wait and hope the desired content appears when you want it to.
In a peer-to-peer world if you want family photos simply use your peer-to-peer application to connect to the remote family member's hard drive and browse or copy all those family photos you want without any web service in the middle. No uploads to Facebook. Just allow reading from a file system directory to authorized users across the internet. Now imagine that directness also applies to messaging, application access, video calls, and anything else digital. The best part of this model is that personal opinions will not dictate remote availability and simultaneously you have privacy in a way that isn't feasible on the current web.
Right. So in the example you just listed you hop online to play video games and because your friend group has your IP you get DDoSed during your competitive match and you don't get rank one in some video game. Instead the person who DDoSed you gets rank one.
So you arrange to have your IP address changed and you remove the people who had it and that works for a time, but it turns out that if they know you're username they can use that to discover your IP through the social graph. So it happens again and you realize what is going on and so you change you're username.
And for a time that works, but one day you're streaming to thousands of your fans and you accidentally tab to the wrong window and your username becomes visible and your IP gets leaked again and you get DDoSed.
You're not a technical person, but you're tired of it. A non-decentralized service hides your IP. You sign up. Because it is monetized it is free and so the sign up experience is frictionless.
We started in your world. There was a problem. The resolution of that problem resulted in leaving your world. In a market place in which everyone was allowed to compete with each other someone else offered a higher utility service than you did. Their service also had the benefit that poor people can use it, while your service is subtly oppressive and elitist requiring you to own resources like a stable internet connection, a router, a computer, and other things which many people don't have in order to have a complete experience online. So you were lower utility and you oppressed poor people.
We take as a given that you solved every technical problem. Your simple solution didn't work. So now you're going to have to complicate it. Also, this isn't hypothetical, because this evolution has literally played out historically already. So if you don't like it or don't find it to be realistic you can be frustrated with reality and history and humans. Because it be like that.
Extrapolating your experience in one online space to cover everyone's experience in every online space, as if everything, everywhere is your use case is either hubris or naivete of the highest order. Either way, I applaud your ability to climb to such heights!
There are so many other use cases and spaces that would benefit enormously from decentralization that I couldn't even begin to list even a small portion of them.
As for leaking IP addresses and DDOSing, that's only relevant if you are communicating with those who are potentially adversarial and definitely mean spirited. My use case doesn't include any of those sorts of people.
My privacy and PII are too valuable to me to allow others to monetize them.
And I don't care to share details of my private life with people I don't know or care about.
As such, decentralization (e.g., a Matrix server for my extended family -- which exists and works wonderfully -- except for the crappy upload speeds I get) is absolutely a valid and viable use case.
That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization.
As for your assertion that "decentralization has been tried and it failed" isn't anywhere close to being the truth.
It hasn't been tried at any real scale and hasn't gained a lot of traction because of the perverse incentives of asymmetrical bandwidth, user-hostile TOS and the willingness of companies to burn cash in order to stomp out/acquire any other group that attempts to compete with them.
tl;dr: You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck!
> That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization.
I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different.
> It hasn't been tried at any real scale and hasn't gained a lot of traction because of the perverse incentives of asymmetrical bandwidth, user-hostile TOS and the willingness of companies to burn cash in order to stomp out/acquire any other group that attempts to compete with them.
My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.
>I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different.
You're right. I didn't get that from what you said at all. Which is likely my fault. I'll go back later and re-read the comment to which I replied to confirm that.
>My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.
The person you originally replied to didn't say the problems were simple. They said that the solution was simple. And I agree.
The solution is quite simple. So much so that in a previous comment[0] I noted how surprised I am that it isn't much more broadly discussed.
However, Implementing such a solution at scale, given the current barriers is, as you imply, not a simple matter. On that point we definitely agree.
I'd add that those barriers don't just incentivize centralization of social media and community discourse, it also incentivizes centralization of most everything in the digital universe.
that includes hosting of internet-facing apps, services and other content, which (IMHO) reduces competition, creates arbitrage opportunities to suck value out of existing business sectors without adding real value, and destroys locally-based businesses and business communities.
My core point is that, as a society it behooves us to knock down those barriers. Chief of which are the monopolistic ISPs, their asymmetric bandwidth and abusive TOS for "consumer" connections.
When most or all of us can simply and reliably (the technical tools are already available, as you correctly point out) host our own content, whether they be videos of the grand-kids, in-house restaurant/retail store ordering systems, and all manner of other apps/services, etc., etc., etc., we can shun these centralized services and avoid the many harms (engagement algorithms, "targeted" advertising, giving corporations the power to decide what speech is acceptable, rent-seeking "apps", etc.) caused by the centralization due to those perverse incentives.
My dad always talked about George Carlin the guy is a legend. My dad always told me a story about when Carlin was “not” allowed to say certain things on the air and made comment to that fact. I am now betting it was because of this case. Supposedly Carlin turned to the camera and said something along the lines of “f&@k all you stupid lip readers out there” except he only lipped it never actually said it. I’m not sure if it was live or they producers just didn’t understand what he did but they aired the show. It made a lot of deaf people mad apparently. I have not been able to find the clip or any reference to it but believe my dad’s account.
I like Carlin too. Here's my choice quote “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
I don't trust people to make good decisions. Admittedly incredibly paternalistic, but I've met a lot of people, and most of them are just making one bad decision after another.
> ...A few large companies, free to set their own rules, wield control over public and private communications.
This statement seems to have always been technically true. What does control mean?
> Conversation and correspondence, far from being treated as confidential, are rifled through by marketers to extract sensitive personal data.
It seems that the public doesn't really care about this.
> Propaganda, lies, and defamatory attacks get broadcast to the masses, often by sources that can’t be traced.
This statement also seems to have always been technically true.
> Rather than promoting an informed public, social media has promoted polarization, extremism, and, all too often, ignorance.
I guess the questions is whether Americans want the government to tell them what they can and can't read or look at. Should that right be taken away? Shouldn't informed adults be able to make their own choices about whether or not they want to spend time on their Twitter or Facebook feeds?
Stop trying to fix or demolish it already. You don't own it and have no right to control everybody else. Think for a minute about how every proposal and precedent could be used against you. The pattern of "Lets do away with due process because I am angry! Wah my lack of due process!" has been repeated too damn many times.
> While the government can’t police private conversations, it can regulate the content of broadcasts to protect the public interest.
I've never agreed with this idea and I don't think I'm alone in that. Possibly "public interest" is the wrong word.
> It’s worth remembering that Congress’s decision to license radio operators after the Titanic disaster was about more than just allocating scarce spectrum. It was about bringing those who speak to the masses out of the shadows and into the daylight of the public square. It was about making broadcasters, whether individuals, businesses, or other organizations, visible and accountable. We may not need to establish a formal licensing program for social media, but we do need to bring the spirit of the common good back to broadcasting.
Except operating in the clear is a well-known danger as well. People using the words "accountability" and "consequences" almost never want to discuss the upper and lower limits of such ideas. If the concept of "punching up" is any indicator, it's at least partially a dog whistle for who it's okay to abuse these days.
Such a system would need to be private as well, instead of operating in full transparency to prohibit the litany of performative exercises people will undergo these days to make their point. The author seems to try to assuage that only "powerful private interests" would take issue with the proposed system.
> An ambitious Digital Communications Act along the lines sketched out here would be complicated and controversial. It would be resisted by many powerful private interests. It would not be a panacea. But we can no longer pretend that social media will fix itself.
At the core of social media problems is bad human behavior of all persuasions. Some people just manage to learn or detach themselves.
Personally, I partially blame public API concepts for most of this mess. Whether you're talking about limitless graphs for sharing "information" (in its most general definition) or API's which can be enumerated. Their legitimate use is finite and at worst it's entirely extractive. Better regulation, to me, would be the government regulating what sort of information you allow to be open and possibly the use/limits of virality.
> I've never agreed with this idea and I don't think I'm alone in that. Possibly "public interest" is the wrong word.
Do you agree or disagree with the notion that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource, actual broadcast (using the spectrum) needs to be regulated?
Sure, regulating spectrum availability is one thing, but the action that the FCC was taking in that piece was related to what words are allowed on regulated channels.
It's a long article with an admirable examination of history.
However, I feel Carr has made a mistake with his attempt to differentiate between private communication and broadcasting based on "number of followers".
I think the better distinctions looks something like:
private communication is anything delivered ONLY to people to whom it is addressed or who have actively opted-in to receive communications from the sender. some authentication must be implied before they can read what I have delivered.
any other communication, regardless of the medium, number of followers, etc. is considered to be public.
So, if I tweet about something, since anyone could read my tweets, they are all public. If I DM someone on twitter, that's private.
If I post something on my own private blog that requires a subscription to read, that's private communication. If I post the same thing on a medium where it can be read by anyone, that's public.
If I email my family about something, that's private; if I post a comment on a tiny open wordpress site with less readers than I have cousines, that's public.
This differentiation says nothing about what the difference in regulation between public and private should be. There are good arguments for many different schemes, some of which involve zero regulation for either form. But to discuss the merits of them, we need a clear distinction between private & public communication, and I think Carr's is wrong and mine is (roughly) right.
1, It's extraordinarily American-centric. Most everything the author wrote doesn't apply to the hundreds of other countries or non-American social sites in the world
2, before people criticise social media™ they should come from a position of experience having run their own site or even just a forum
That's the basic issue, an ignorant American jabbering on about something they have zero experience on.
For decades it was "common knowledge" that the War of the Worlds broadcast caused mass hysteria, when in fact if you look back on the newspaper articles at the time and compare them to criminal and hospital records you find no such thing. It would be more accurate to say that the newspaper industry was upset with the radio industry.
An article from a professor publishing via W.W. Norton about the internet is cut from the same cloth as newspaper vs radio, imo.
106 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 189 ms ] threadThe article seems to be arguing that social media companies need to be judge, jury and censor over every message that is "broadcast", i.e. sent to more than a few close friends.
It admits that defining a "public interest" standard is basically impossible, but assumes that this ambiguity won't be exploited by whichever side is in control of whichever body gets to punish the social media companies for under- or over-censoring.
If someone tweets "Click here to read my 400 page manifesto about what is wrong with America", would Twitter need to assign lawyers the task of scouring that document for "problematic" passages like "defund the police" or "give more power to ICE"?
Perhaps if there were a workable system in place for silencing extreme and misinformed voices on the TV and radio, we could try applying it at scale to the internet too, but right now that's like trying to run before you can crawl.
In the UK TV broadcasters get their licences and general charter terms from the government, based on standards previously contested in law and, I believe, broadly enshrined in statute and/or regulations. One of those terms is a crucial clause to the effect that broadcasters are not allowed to broadcast anything that would make ordinary people throw up over their TV dinner or grannies die of apoplexy, etc.
Various entities, people or single issue political parties for instance, have attempted to get broadcasters to show films containing grisly stuff, and when they meet refusal have attempted to sue broadcasters on free speech grounds. However, the right to free speech does not allow a legal entity or person to compel some other party to shout out noxious views on their behalf. So broadcasters in the UK can exercise their rights against such compulsion and filter out extremal horrors if they wish. The tests they use are designed to maintain the same two or three standard deviations of a normal distribution curve that maximises their customer base and matches the same standards civil law requires to maintain order on the civil scale anyway.
In that context, what are social media companies if they are not media intermediaries between legal entities? Thus they can not be compelled to relay anyone's content to anywhere else if they don't want to. Their T&Cs typically say so anyway.
Folks worried about censorship of their partisan or minority views on such platforms don't seem to get what rights those intermediary companies have. They play nice relaying messages because they like mass market incomes.
So really the issue might be purely about how many messages could MetaFB/Twitter afford to kill off and still be popular enough to survive?
Personally I think we have a human nature problem, and not a technology problem looking for market fit.
Anyone is free to join the channel, no limitations or anything, just an opt-in. Rule is posted obviously and we remind people frequently.
I've lost 4 people because they were upset that this rule is enforced against everyone, out of a group of maybe 20. They wanted their politics to be everywhere and not constrained to one channel.
I never thought this tiny little policy was going to cause such a mess. It has dramatically improved the rest of discussions - you can actually just talk about stuff without people jumping in with their political takes - but it's been an upsetting policy in ways I did not anticipate.
And I live in an area affected by Hurricane Ida. I've started following my local government on social media because it is one of the best places to keep up to date on what's going on concerning cleanup and what not. And I would say a government run page concerning that government is about as political as you can get.
As is your community page. A lot of things related to your town is political. I mean, politics is the word we use to define how groups make decisions. So any time you're talking about making decisions in a group, you're talking politics.
But of course, that's not what you mean when you say "politics". It's not what anyone who complains about politics mean when they say politics. They either mean "things I don't agree with", "things I find uncomfortable to think about", or "evangelizing a viewpoint".
For instance, someone complained about Squid Game being "too political" because it had an underlying message of "rich people fuck with poor people for sport". But it isn't a political statement at all, it's a sociological one. But thinking about how a less exaggerated version of that is basically our day to day makes that guy uncomfortable. He wanted to tune in and drop out. But "this makes me uncomfortable" is a him problem. He's trying to make it an everyone problem.
This isn’t very likely. But it’s more likely than someone charging to aggregate IM statuses and put them in chronological order.
One has to realize that FB is only optimizing for profit (and Zuck not going to jail). The only times they curbed was when bad PR was threatening their profits (and Mark’s freedom).
I would expect most Fediverse applications don't have much of a ranking algorithm yet, or at least it should be configurable.
Facebook (or Instagram) don't seem to have good options for this so for the most part I don't use them.
Discord works chronologically, for now at least, and as long as it does I'll be happy to keep chatting with my friends there.
The way the world operates in 2021 is a mess, unfortunately this is normal so few people seem to notice.
I see a lot of stuff like, "Terrorists use the platform to organize and plan attacks!", which is true...but that seems like you should be solving that by solving the reasons people want to be terrorizing, not by attacking the mediums they use. If you want to attack mediums, then you'd be just as justified wiping away USPS as you would FB/Insta. It just seems like FB is being used as a scapegoat for lawmakers to avoid actually solving problems instead of pretending to solve them.
You might be interested in this: https://www.wired.com/story/jargon-watch-rising-danger-stoch...
I want tools that help me communicate with other people. Learn things, get exposed to new ideas. And we can't have that with a huge system designed to prevent people from saying the wrong things.
Our ability to communicate and learn freely is dependent on the ability for people we disagree with to also have this ability. You will be censored if you want other people censored.
You can communicate freely, but that doesn't mean there isn't consequences for things you speak and nobody has to host you while you're broadcasting it. I find this type of argument devolves into "I want to be a crappy person and not be judged for it or face consequences", which just isn't the reality we're living in.
I mean, I can see how sometimes the internet seems to promise even more freedom of speech than in physical spaces and also that sometimes there are not very clear written laws or policies for those digital spaces, paired with unclear or unfair enforcement of those laws and policies.
Makes me wonder what the future of digital governance will look like. Do we have the digital equivalent of cops roaming semi-public spaces like Twitter and Facebook? If so, by whose consent are they governing? Do these orgs hire the equivalent of private security guards or bouncers? Have they already done so through moderators and such?
Anyway, just got me thinking about some of the challenges in the governance of digital spaces.
What you can say under such circumstances is pretty diverse.
A lot of content Facebook removes would be protected speech in a public space.
In a private physical space its up to the owner. And there is a lot of racism, misogony, bullying, sexist, misandry, threats to public figures, drugs sold, hookers, evil gossip, conspiracy theories, fake news, bad medical advice, locker room talk, inside deals, threats that go on in pubs, gyms, bars, clubs, by people of all races, genders, and ages (once you are allowed in).
If you owned a bar and you swore to avoid all of the above, you would need to kick out nearly everyone on a good night with lots of spirits and beer sold.
"Ok Bob, I know we are in rural Arizona, but what you just said, well some academic in California could find that offensive, you have to leave now. "
Whereas I find your counter-argument devolves into "Crappy people are those who disagree with my point of view and they should face consequences"...
The truth is there are extremes on both sides; but the censorship seems to be overwhelmingly driven by one.
It's idiotic.
It’s stupid.
In Korea they use this to cow people into behaving “properly” whatever the fuck that means. There is no reason to maintain the belief it will only be used to smoke out the “bigots”.
In context of what the parent post, are you under the impression that gay people were cancelled after going through some due process?
People having done a bad thing in the past does not excuse doing a bad thing today.
edit: never did I say that a previous wrong justifies a wrong today. I'm challenging your assertion that this is "new." At the same time, I do think that some cases of so-called "cancel culture" are just fine, specifically when it's no different from any other business owner booting a customer for being abusive towards staff or other customers. Some examples of so-called "cancel culture" are in fact bad, and I agree that folks who said dumb shit 20 years ago should get some leeway if they've changed in the meantime.
And no gay person suffered millenia of persecution, not even non-persecuted individuals live that long. You might as well say carbon-based lifeforms suffered millenia of persecution at their own hands and call it a day.
The only new thing is that it's labelled "cancel culture" which makes it somehow "bad" for some people.
Yes, but the power balance shifted so that the dissatisfaction of "small" people can now be perceived and felt by the wealthy and powerful. "Small" people can organise around a cause and make the powerful uncomfortable, so the powerful attack.
There is nothing extreme about getting booted from facebook because one can't behave like a reasonable adult. As noted above if anyone did any of this in a setting like a restaurant they would be asked to leave, coupled with assistance from law enforcement and even possible arrest for trespassing and disturbing the peace.
So who's wrong here? The businesses that don't want to be subjected to certain types of speech from customers because it impacts their business or the people that feel they have the right to say whatever they want free from consequence? Why can a McDonald's ask a customer to leave their establishment because they used the N word in front of customers, but Facebook can't? And let's be clear, in both cases no censorship occured, there was just consequences after the fact. Looking forward to your reply.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are times and places to censor and be censored. Not all things should be said at all times.
I think the problem is that we see censorship as something bad, so anyone quelling speech inappropriate for the setting can't be censoring because they're doing something good, not bad. But censorship isn't bad in and of itself. It's the reason for the censorship that makes it good or bad.
Censoring people because they are criticising you? That's bad. Censoring people because they are talking about hockey on a basketball forum? That's good.
So I would say, don't fall into the trap of getting into an argument about defining censorship. Keep the argument focused along the lines of kicking assholes out of McDonalds. Have them explain how its different from that.
In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:
under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights
So far the court has rejected the application of Pruneyard to the online space, but it might change with more sympathetic plantiffs
That's because you can't think outside the box. All the greatest iconoclastic truths in human history were labeled "dangerous misinformation" by the authorities.
When they became defacto owners of the largest modern day town square where the majority of political speech is conducted?
Snake oil salesman were no heroes of humanity.
Think about that for a moment.
Subjective (adj)[0]:
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.Old memes aside, I (as a reasonably intelligent person) don't understand what you mean by that.
Please explain what you mean by "subjective" in this context.
Are you arguing that information like "the heat of vaporization of water is 100C at sea level," or "the island of Manhattan has a land area of ~23 square miles" is only valid or correct if I as an individual decide that's the case, otherwise it's false?
How about information like "On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address," or "I voted in the 2021 elections."
Are those subjective?
[0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective
An argument based on human history and the progress of human rights?
>They spread lies which cost lives.
Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.
This is not what I meant and you know it.
> Precisely the same argument used time and time again against the thought leaders of human rights.
This is utter bullshit and derailment. People who spread misinformation about covid are wrong. There are scientific facts which prove them wrong. The fact that they repeat something against those facts doesn't make them heroes because there was Copernicus who was also "against something". Copernicus had the facts side behind him. Those guys you try to advertise here are the church which was against him because they had THE FEELING that he was wrong and no scientific facts which would support them.
I'm sure there are tons more actual legal things you cannot freely talk about on FB.
I get the idea of not having all the "so and so friend liked so and so's post" which feel low quality in a feed, but part of a custom feed is prioritizing updates from people you actually want to see updates from
Also, the tools exists on all of these social media products to actually go and check on your friends' pages where you can see their updates. Nothing stops you from doing that and consuming the content you wish.
You didn't did it yet. All of those are moving targets, and moving extremely fast especially in the US. I could say a dozen of totally non controversial statements in my country of residence (Japan), half of which being controversial or labeled some kind of -ist in my own country (France) and all of them warranting me cancellation in the US. At this rate what you are writing now will be categorized racist, threatening or harassing in a few years or so. Even your nickname could already be considered some kind of harassment as it single out kids born out of wedlock and is thus enforcing "the patriarchy". (Think it's far-fetched? Have a look at GitHub renaming the master branch)
They cut the phone lines in Chernobyl for the same reason.
On YouTube just saying your name would get your videos demonetized and I have a feeling your username banned.
https://www.youtube.com/user/BastarD/videos
Being demonetized is not censorship.
For example on Facebook men are allowed to show nipples on pictures while women are not. For Canada at least, that’s discrimination based on sex / gender. Many big tech moderation policies actively encourage discrimination.
It's great to know your username is currently acceptable to YouTube.
Basically what happens on FB is comments get wildly misconstrued by the mod team / AI, thankfully it appears the mod team or it AI has a limited vocabulary so as long as you use 5 syllable words to describe your thoughts its pretty easy to avoid.
I tend to agree with you that censorship is probably an inexact or overreaching term for what's going on. Of course social media is balancing a number of factors, pleasing their regulators, pleasing their advertisers, pleasing their employees. It feels like the creation of a Digital Singapore in the vein of William Gibson's 1993 article Disneyland with the Death Penalty. (Of course the penalties are much less severe) https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
-------------
"IT'S LIKE AN entire country run by Jeffrey Katzenberg," the producer had said, "under the motto 'Be happy or I'll kill you.'" We were sitting in an office a block from Rodeo Drive, on large black furniture leased with Japanese venture capital.
Now that I'm actually here, the Disneyland metaphor is proving impossible to shake. For that matter, Rodeo Drive comes frequently to mind, though the local equivalent feels more like 30 or 40 Beverly Centers put end to end.
;-)
Was it Laurie Anderson who said that VR would never look real until they learned how to put some dirt in it? Singapore's airport, the Changi Airtropolis, seemed to possess no more resolution than some early VPL world. There was no dirt whatsoever; no muss, no furred fractal edge to things. Outside, the organic, florid as ever in the tropics, had been gardened into brilliant green, and all-too-perfect examples of itself. Only the clouds were feathered with chaos—weird columnar structures towering above the Strait of China.
You left a couple use cases for censorship off your list, so I added them back in. I totally agree with you, I don't do any of those things either, so no big deal for the two of us.
There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning. Cultural attitudes and mores and standards of decency shift constantly. Something you say today that seems within the bounds of good taste could be taken out of context or deemed racist/harassing later by different people. I trust you are a good citizen online and don't touch controversy, but you can't possibly know how language will evolve. I've seen simple and honest disagreements on Twitter turn into accusations of harassment in real time. The threat of misinformation is even more elusive and mercurial. I remember just a year ago when saying SARS-CoV-2 might have accidentally leaked from a lab was WIDELY considered dangerous information that should be scrubbed from the internet. Now it's at least acceptable to discuss in congress and on legacy media outlets. The "don't be a dick" model of speech regulation is full of traps and loopholes and problems that make it a bad guideline in many circumstances.
It was so incredibly stupid
Also, don't keep pasting the phrase "information is subjective" into your comments, it's giving the game away.
It's not an opinion of mine, it's a well documented phenomenon[0].
[0]https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/covid-19-has-led-to-an-...
But your username is enough to get you kicked off of many.
What matters is that I'm offended. Heck, "bastardchild" doesn't even have to offend me because it is clearly offensive to bastards and possibly children.
Your "justification" for such offensive behavior is no different than the offensive explanations by folks who wanted to have lawn jockeys.
How dare you. Your account should be deleted.
That's how cancel culture works.
People of color are more likely to be called that slur, and you are their “operator”? I talked to my BIPOC friends and they think that’s incredibly racist. They say you are dehumanizing them and are clearly a white supremacist who celebrates operating POC. They are experiencing trauma right now given the outright violence of your name.
This requires:
* Routes - both parties to be on IPv6 or either party to have something like port address translation on a IPv6 interface.
* Identity - This will require a combination of CA and STUN. The certificate from the CA and corresponding key pair associated with that certificate ensures a user is who they say they are and their keys are respectable. The corresponding key exchange ensures the data is confined to the two parties. The STUN server correlates the unique user ID, such as that which is certified by the certificate, to an IP address.
Anything less is just another game for some media company to use you as a product.
This is my go to response as to "what to do about social media."
And I opine|rant|blather on about it whenever I see folks complaining about or claiming that some rules|regulation|policy will "fix" social media.
And such tracts are becoming more and more common (cf. this article[0][1], entitled OK, but What Should We Actually Do About Facebook? I Asked the Experts. from today). But, as in the article linked, no one ever suggests decentralized communications.
I'm not sure why, but there certainly are barriers to making decentralized "social media" work. Those same barriers are what make centralization of much of our digital universe necessary and hugely profitable.
Those barriers are primarily (there are other issues, but are mostly part of the result rather than the cause) related to the ways in which end-users are provided access to the Internet.
I'm specifically referring to asymmetric internet links. Most internet links are $X Mb/sec download and ($X / 25 or so) Mb/sec upload.
What's more, there are often policy restrictions on "consumer" internet links that block them from "running servers," whether that be port blocking or throttling.
This keeps decentralized communication from being viable. Other than these artificial barriers, there's nothing stopping folks from hosting their own cat/family/meme photos/videos and/or other content.
There are plenty of decentralized platforms that can do so with minimal set up and configuration.
However, if you can't serve more than a couple of concurrent connections at a reasonable speed, that breaks the whole decentralized/P2P paradigm. Because my upload bandwidth is the limiting factor in being able to host content.
If, on the other hand, you have a link with symmetric bandwidth without policy restrictions, serving your own content is a no-brainer.
As such, my "solution" for addressing the "censorship" of the centralized "social media" platforms is to make them irrelevant by eliminating the entire reason for their existence -- asymmetric bandwidth favoring download vs. upload on internet links.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/opinion/facebook-experts....
[1] (same as [0], just from archive.md): https://archive.md/qpNtV
Edit: Added title of linked article in the comment.
As a result I am writing a peer-to-peer application assuming universal fiber, 4K displays, and IPv6 are already common.
I hope you're right. Where I live (the US), most ISPs have cable TV systems, interests in streaming platforms, or both.
That provides incentives to maintain the status quo WRT asymmetric links and centralization.
ISPs like Verizon, which had previously pushed hard on fiber deployment, are refocusing on wireless, as that's a much bigger profit center for them.
I hope you're right about the inevitability of (multi-)GB/sec symmetric connections, but the current incentive structure argues against it, at least in the US.
Which is why I believe that last-mile FTTP[0] should largely be local, public/quasi-public[1] utilities that support themselves by selling interconnects to multiple ISPs.
Those ISPs can then compete on speed, price, services, etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x#FTTP
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quasi_public_corporatio...
Let's raise the level of discourse by reviewing our history. There are and have been in the past decentralized social applications. One of the most notable of them in terms of adoption was Skype. It was acquired by Microsoft. In the past it was normal to use Skype in gaming communities. It was a competitor to Ventrillo and TeamSpeak. Skype moved away from decentralization.
It's really common at this point for people who are simultaneously paranoid and outraged to start exclaiming with indignation that clearly corporations are evil. This failure to engage with reality is common online. Putting aside that social companies only discovered a few years ago that connecting people had disastrous consequence and have been devoting billions to try to address these so-called simple problems ever since it became clear these problems existed lets try to see if we can find a non-paranoid good-faith reason for Microsoft to have moved away from decentralization.
What do you know, but Discord displaced Skype for a reason within gaming communities!
Why did gaming communities move away from Skype? I've been in gaming communities. I've heard people express some of their problems with Skype. One of the issues that Skype had was that... it was decentralized and that could lead to the leaking of your IP address. Therefore if a streamer or even another person accidentally showed their Skype they could get DDoSed. At high levels in various competitive games this was a severe problem, because as you might guess... in social media you tend to be connected with people who are socially connected to you! So you leaked your IP address very often to just the sort of people with the incentive to capitalize on that by DDoSing you so they could beat you in a game.
Now Skype isn't decentralized, but it didn't matter. They didn't do a good enough job to serve some segment of the community. So Skype was doing just what you suggested. Being decentralized. And they had a higher friction process than a competitor, which is the case for your solution. And as a direct result of these things... (and others, mind, but we have to simplify reality at least a little to understand it)...
Discord found product-market fit in the gaming niche! And it grew increasingly popular. And now everyone in the gaming communities is on Discord, not Skype. Moreover, Skype has lost share even outside of gaming to Discord as Discord executes the standard niche to general playbook that so many social companies have found success executing.
Congratulations: your simple solution has already failed. You thought it was simple, but you were just ignorant of the actual challenges. But now we get to the real problem. The problem you completely missed. All of what I just said? It isn't the real problem. Those are details. They are suggestive of the real problem, but you need to step back and think about this from a level higher to see the true problem. It isn't technical. It is social. It's in the name. Not technical media, social media.
The true problem is so complex that it is almost certainly impossible to solve in a way which will please everyone. I'd go as far as to say it's probably fundamentally unsolvable.
Here is the real problem outlined using what we covered above:
1. Notice that decentralization is important to you.
2. Notice that it is outright against the desires of others.
3. Notice that social applications get more powerful as the number of participants...
1) Social media has a profit motive to increase engagement
2) Social media has an expensive moderation problem
The solution is also simple, but certainly not easy. There are technology problems to solve.
When you remove access to the user content from the service provider they have nothing to moderate and cannot increase engagement through manipulation of the message (algorithms).
Most people (current developers) refuse to see this simplicity because alternatives are a world directly in conflict with their current livelihoods. This is a behavior called Cognitive Conservatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_(belief_revision)
I will explain the alternative like this: content on demand directly at the source. Its like what Netflix did to cable and network television. Users take the content when they want it a la carte without waiting for a content provider to prescribe a fixed schedule. Instead of waiting for a media service to make features or content available, or even for their users to make user content available via upload, in a peer-to-peer reality the content is available the moment a user allows remote access. Facebook is like old cable television. You have to wait and hope the desired content appears when you want it to.
In a peer-to-peer world if you want family photos simply use your peer-to-peer application to connect to the remote family member's hard drive and browse or copy all those family photos you want without any web service in the middle. No uploads to Facebook. Just allow reading from a file system directory to authorized users across the internet. Now imagine that directness also applies to messaging, application access, video calls, and anything else digital. The best part of this model is that personal opinions will not dictate remote availability and simultaneously you have privacy in a way that isn't feasible on the current web.
So you arrange to have your IP address changed and you remove the people who had it and that works for a time, but it turns out that if they know you're username they can use that to discover your IP through the social graph. So it happens again and you realize what is going on and so you change you're username.
And for a time that works, but one day you're streaming to thousands of your fans and you accidentally tab to the wrong window and your username becomes visible and your IP gets leaked again and you get DDoSed.
You're not a technical person, but you're tired of it. A non-decentralized service hides your IP. You sign up. Because it is monetized it is free and so the sign up experience is frictionless.
We started in your world. There was a problem. The resolution of that problem resulted in leaving your world. In a market place in which everyone was allowed to compete with each other someone else offered a higher utility service than you did. Their service also had the benefit that poor people can use it, while your service is subtly oppressive and elitist requiring you to own resources like a stable internet connection, a router, a computer, and other things which many people don't have in order to have a complete experience online. So you were lower utility and you oppressed poor people.
We take as a given that you solved every technical problem. Your simple solution didn't work. So now you're going to have to complicate it. Also, this isn't hypothetical, because this evolution has literally played out historically already. So if you don't like it or don't find it to be realistic you can be frustrated with reality and history and humans. Because it be like that.
There are so many other use cases and spaces that would benefit enormously from decentralization that I couldn't even begin to list even a small portion of them.
As for leaking IP addresses and DDOSing, that's only relevant if you are communicating with those who are potentially adversarial and definitely mean spirited. My use case doesn't include any of those sorts of people.
My privacy and PII are too valuable to me to allow others to monetize them.
And I don't care to share details of my private life with people I don't know or care about.
As such, decentralization (e.g., a Matrix server for my extended family -- which exists and works wonderfully -- except for the crappy upload speeds I get) is absolutely a valid and viable use case.
That you can't see past your own experiences and prejudices says much more about you than it does about centralization vs. decentralization.
As for your assertion that "decentralization has been tried and it failed" isn't anywhere close to being the truth.
It hasn't been tried at any real scale and hasn't gained a lot of traction because of the perverse incentives of asymmetrical bandwidth, user-hostile TOS and the willingness of companies to burn cash in order to stomp out/acquire any other group that attempts to compete with them.
tl;dr: You're talking out of your ass and it smells that way too. Yuck!
I get why you came to this conclusion, but you're pretty far off from understanding my actual point which had nothing to do with decentralization. I'm actually a fan of decentralization. There are obviously technical means of solving the failure case I shared. I'm not trying to generalize my experience to everyone. Actually, that is kind of the exact opposite of my point. I'm saying that the problems in social media aren't technical, but social, because people are different.
> It hasn't been tried at any real scale and hasn't gained a lot of traction because of the perverse incentives of asymmetrical bandwidth, user-hostile TOS and the willingness of companies to burn cash in order to stomp out/acquire any other group that attempts to compete with them.
My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.
You're right. I didn't get that from what you said at all. Which is likely my fault. I'll go back later and re-read the comment to which I replied to confirm that.
>My core point was that the problems aren't simple, because they aren't technical, and you're kind of making that point as well now.
The person you originally replied to didn't say the problems were simple. They said that the solution was simple. And I agree.
The solution is quite simple. So much so that in a previous comment[0] I noted how surprised I am that it isn't much more broadly discussed.
However, Implementing such a solution at scale, given the current barriers is, as you imply, not a simple matter. On that point we definitely agree.
I'd add that those barriers don't just incentivize centralization of social media and community discourse, it also incentivizes centralization of most everything in the digital universe.
that includes hosting of internet-facing apps, services and other content, which (IMHO) reduces competition, creates arbitrage opportunities to suck value out of existing business sectors without adding real value, and destroys locally-based businesses and business communities.
My core point is that, as a society it behooves us to knock down those barriers. Chief of which are the monopolistic ISPs, their asymmetric bandwidth and abusive TOS for "consumer" connections.
When most or all of us can simply and reliably (the technical tools are already available, as you correctly point out) host our own content, whether they be videos of the grand-kids, in-house restaurant/retail store ordering systems, and all manner of other apps/services, etc., etc., etc., we can shun these centralized services and avoid the many harms (engagement algorithms, "targeted" advertising, giving corporations the power to decide what speech is acceptable, rent-seeking "apps", etc.) caused by the centralization due to those perverse incentives.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29112551
Edit: Cleaned up my prose slightly.
I don't trust people to make good decisions. Admittedly incredibly paternalistic, but I've met a lot of people, and most of them are just making one bad decision after another.
This statement seems to have always been technically true. What does control mean?
> Conversation and correspondence, far from being treated as confidential, are rifled through by marketers to extract sensitive personal data.
It seems that the public doesn't really care about this.
> Propaganda, lies, and defamatory attacks get broadcast to the masses, often by sources that can’t be traced.
This statement also seems to have always been technically true.
> Rather than promoting an informed public, social media has promoted polarization, extremism, and, all too often, ignorance.
I guess the questions is whether Americans want the government to tell them what they can and can't read or look at. Should that right be taken away? Shouldn't informed adults be able to make their own choices about whether or not they want to spend time on their Twitter or Facebook feeds?
I've never agreed with this idea and I don't think I'm alone in that. Possibly "public interest" is the wrong word.
> It’s worth remembering that Congress’s decision to license radio operators after the Titanic disaster was about more than just allocating scarce spectrum. It was about bringing those who speak to the masses out of the shadows and into the daylight of the public square. It was about making broadcasters, whether individuals, businesses, or other organizations, visible and accountable. We may not need to establish a formal licensing program for social media, but we do need to bring the spirit of the common good back to broadcasting.
Except operating in the clear is a well-known danger as well. People using the words "accountability" and "consequences" almost never want to discuss the upper and lower limits of such ideas. If the concept of "punching up" is any indicator, it's at least partially a dog whistle for who it's okay to abuse these days.
Such a system would need to be private as well, instead of operating in full transparency to prohibit the litany of performative exercises people will undergo these days to make their point. The author seems to try to assuage that only "powerful private interests" would take issue with the proposed system.
> An ambitious Digital Communications Act along the lines sketched out here would be complicated and controversial. It would be resisted by many powerful private interests. It would not be a panacea. But we can no longer pretend that social media will fix itself.
At the core of social media problems is bad human behavior of all persuasions. Some people just manage to learn or detach themselves.
Personally, I partially blame public API concepts for most of this mess. Whether you're talking about limitless graphs for sharing "information" (in its most general definition) or API's which can be enumerated. Their legitimate use is finite and at worst it's entirely extractive. Better regulation, to me, would be the government regulating what sort of information you allow to be open and possibly the use/limits of virality.
Do you agree or disagree with the notion that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource, actual broadcast (using the spectrum) needs to be regulated?
However, I feel Carr has made a mistake with his attempt to differentiate between private communication and broadcasting based on "number of followers".
I think the better distinctions looks something like:
So, if I tweet about something, since anyone could read my tweets, they are all public. If I DM someone on twitter, that's private.If I post something on my own private blog that requires a subscription to read, that's private communication. If I post the same thing on a medium where it can be read by anyone, that's public.
If I email my family about something, that's private; if I post a comment on a tiny open wordpress site with less readers than I have cousines, that's public.
This differentiation says nothing about what the difference in regulation between public and private should be. There are good arguments for many different schemes, some of which involve zero regulation for either form. But to discuss the merits of them, we need a clear distinction between private & public communication, and I think Carr's is wrong and mine is (roughly) right.
2, before people criticise social media™ they should come from a position of experience having run their own site or even just a forum
That's the basic issue, an ignorant American jabbering on about something they have zero experience on.
An article from a professor publishing via W.W. Norton about the internet is cut from the same cloth as newspaper vs radio, imo.